Extramarital Affair: Truly in love with each other

[simpleman]

ajumma,

sm, are u able to appreciate that different people view marriage vows differently?

some take their vows seriously, some don't at all, some do but flounder in times of hardship.

I understand perfectly and do appreciate that different people view marriage vows differently..

Do you?

You have been harping upon this point about TS since the beginning.. how wrong it is etc etc..

You have no sense of logic, have you?

 

[simpleman]

If you are accusing me of judging you for being judgemental - then yes, I agree I am. But I have reasons - I stated my reasons.

You said TS lied to protect himself.. I replied that this might not be the case.. he is just paralyzed by inaction - probably not a wise thing to do - but he is not deliberately lying just to protect himself. He may be mistaken about protecting the people that he lied to - but I won't fault his intention.

So unless you can tell me where I am not justified in judging you. I am judging you because you look at the case through your tinted eyes, your prejudice - without discussing about the merits of the case.

Adultery is wrong. It is to be condemned. Period. Yes, it may be so but in the circumstances and when it has happened, what is the point of repeating this? Repeat again. Adultery is wrong. It has to be condemned.... Repeat and repeat again.

 

[ajumma]

milo, i did not use the foreign examples to prove how wrong ant is. i cited the examples to show sm, in fact, that having an affair is not akin to "telling a lie".

that was what sm said. it's just a lie because ant could not deal with his feelings.

is it just a lie? some lies have a bigger impact than others. this lie can mess up his kids' lives. the emotional scars left behind may never heal. i know a kid whose dad had a wife and a mistress. the kid was the mistress's child. it was tragedy because he committed suicide.

that is the reality of a lack of parental care. instead of caring for the child, the parents are more interested in entangling themselves in messy relationships.

sm, everyone has their own prejudices. only ant himself knows who has said the right thing. and the more accurate picture may be a mix of what both of us have said.

i did not say that adultery has to be condemned. in fact, i said the countries that practise those laws are crazy (see post above, saturday, 12:13am).

 

[miloice]

hi ajumma,

bringing relevance to the subject, citing crazy laws doesn't at all enforce anything more on your stand. Its really a moot point.

We have our prejudice and should be aware of it. We don't just hang on to our beliefs. We look at the situation to make the call that is specific to it. right? Throughout, you have been singing one tune regardless. wrong wrong wrong. If you didn't realize it. It doesn't seem that you are willing to hear TS side of the story. Yes, the truth is probably somewhere in between. To get closer to it, you will need to consider more sides of the story. You acknowledged you are being prejudiced. Ironic to call others judgemental when they point it out to you.

 

[susanna_low]

haha yeah i think this topic really keep been repeating the same contents.

 

[miloice]

"is it just a lie? some lies have a bigger impact than others. this lie can mess up his kids' lives. the emotional scars left behind may never heal."

So, it is a lie.

However, I do agree that the manner it is phased could make one feel it is trivializing it. I would think that is a misunderstanding that could be clarified if the disagreement point is brought forth more clearly. The crazy laws analogy isn't helping at all.

 

[ajumma]

milo, everyone here is prejudiced. humans are inherently biased.

at least i acknowledge my prejudices. others pretend to be objective, when really, true objectivity is not possible.

 

[miloice]

haha yeah i think this topic really keep been repeating the same contents.

Dear all, you can copy & paste in your PCs, Macs and smartphones & tabs.

keekee...

 

[ajumma]

ok fair enough milo.

yup, ting yi, this is ant's thread.

sorry for hijacking it and repeating the same things. just think of the impact, ant. i've said all i have to say.

wish u well.

 

[miloice]

Yes, you accepted your prejudice now. But you continued to display more prejudice again...

"others pretend to be objective, when really, true objectivity is not possible."

There is no discussion when we don't exercise basic respect and control over our own prejudice. When we state our reasons on a point, these reasons has to be logical. NOT BASED ON PERSONAL PREJUDICE.

 

[susanna_low]

ajumma, cheers though i find tt u make good points too

lunchtime coming, hungry hungry!~

 

[ajumma]

milo, care to tell me how powder exercised basic respect and control by using the f word?

is that how respect is defined in this forum? :-/

ting yi, thanks.

 

[simpleman]

You notice that I am not taking side of ts.. and I don't want to judge about adultery - right or wrong. It is a moot point because it has happened in this instance. I am more interested in telling him what is in store for him - the consequences of his subsequent actions.

His intention of staying in the marriage for the children may seem to be "good" but I made my points clear that the alternative of ending the marriage may not be that bad - even for the children - if it is managed properly. He has time on his side to part with his wife without the histronics of an affair being exposed..

But you kept harping on how serious adultery is.. how he was lying to protect himself.. so what is the point you are making? Yes, he committed adultery.. now so what? My point is to tell him to consider separation and limit the damage.. but what are you telling him? He has already committed the adultery.. what else can you tell him to do? Give up the lover and back to the wife?

make your stand instead of harping about how serious adultery is.. we all know how it is. I have gone through it. I am eminently qualified to speak about it.. but what is the point about how serious adultery is?

 

[miloice]

After your clarifications, we have a better understanding no? Objectivity is a goal we work towards in open communications and discussions. As working professionals, it is something we TRY to achieve daily at work as well. We understand the differences and prejudices. We don't magnify that in any discussions, it will only end up with everyone not seeing eye to eye and fighting.

 

[miloice]

hi ajumma, yes, as pointed to powder on August 08, 2011 - 10:34 am, I agree with you on the excessive profanities. One would understand the context in situations when it is an outburst.

imho, it was excessive and not required.

 

[miloice]

Bon appetitte all. Cheers.

 

[infojunkie]

the motherfarker 60secs did it again...

http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?t=448614&highlight=67secs

 

[infojunkie]

oops, it should be 67secs...

 

[powder]

my use of fcuk, fcuking is for emphasis purpose, which is in my daily langauge, so i dun have to make excuses for it, certainly not in this day and age.

pointing out my use of profanity is pretty desperate, becos it doesn't make me wrong... although that seems to be a last ditch effort to refute me by calling into question my use of profanity, which i use naturally for emphasizing. in fact i have no idea why i need to even fcuking explain to u.

when your points don't make sense, u're going "eeeeks, powder say bad word..."

fcuking lame...

 

[simpleman]

Ya. Pretty lame.. asking other forumers to judge on the use of language.. which is irrelevant. It is not important what I think of the use of profanities..

And some more can tell us not to be on a forum.. if we can't accept different view points.. Who said we can't accept different view points - just won't let prejudices be taken lightly without substantiation. By the same token, if you see red over some f.. word, might as well not be in a public forum.

Again lame excuse about

at least i acknowledge my prejudices. others pretend to be objective, when really, true objectivity is not possible.

Trying to make her stand greater that it is.. acknowledging prejudices is one thing.. not using prejudices in our argument is another thing.

 

[powder]

wah i just saw the part abt respect...

"milo, care to tell me how powder exercised basic respect and control by using the f word?

is that how respect is defined in this forum? :-/ "

pls talk to me directly, milo is not gonna be able to explain for me rite?

u wanna write to eminem for not respecting u with his songs?

i used to have more respect for u, but with this recent thread i seriously doubt it can even be there. IF U wanna take the use of the word "fcuk" so personally to reflect a lack of control and respect... then obviously u live in an era only u understand. else u are just trying to find ways to penalise me thru my daily language.

as it is on national day i would declare "i fcuking love my country"; if someone does something incredulous i would say "u fcuking kidding me!"; if something is way overpriced i would say "it's fcuking expensive"; and if i had a good meal i would say "it's fcuking nice!"; if i screwed up i say "i fcuked it up". so wtf is wrong with that?

if u wanna nit-pick on it, too bad. it goes to show that using "fcuk" is immediately a negative with u... just like extra-marital affairs is a negative with u despite u acting like u understand.

as for Milo, sorry man, i speak this way, wayyyyy before NS and that does not make me a bad person.

 

[simpleman]

ajumma is not asking milo to explain for you. But gathering support that you are not giving respect by using the f... word. Pretty lame - really.

I also think she use to speak some sense but the recent exchanges has all but evaporated whatever positive that is left.

As for the f... word. I don't use it often.. when cursing yes - especially when driving or playing mahjong.. but hardly in writing. But I don't really care what other people are writing.. especially it is for emphasis and not on the literal meaning of the word..

I don't know.. Like the NTU valedictorian - the way she used it.. kinda cute and I don't understand the big hoo haa over it. Granted it is a formal graduation speech but at times we need to let our hair down.

 

[powder]

ok i'm one of those who use it pretty often, i dun see a need to adjust to viewers' preferences given there's no NC16 on this and it really isn't meant to be vulgar but for emphasis.

u can u 'damn', 'helluva', 'bloody', 'freaking', etc... it's all your choice. u can dun use it but if your points dun make sense - u still dun make sense and u dun get extra marks for not using them.

 

[miloice]

haha.... powder, not bad person.
Rather, the appropriateness. I don't see the need to swear. Unlike powderful, you don't usually end up swearing this much honestly. We have all seen and familiar much more with civil side of you. This is more like an ah beng version of powder voicing out. Basically the same chap but with the vulgarities and crude humour.

Even when one phases their statements in the most politically correctly manner, the content has to make sense. Ajumma's analogies were way off. It is neither appropriate nor logical with her stand and the discussion.

Normally, apart from NS, I will only swear like this on the road in my own car.

 

[simpleman]

Milo,

But really, what is appropriateness? Who defines it? You? Ajumma?

 

[simpleman]

Personally I don't find it necessary to use the f... word but I can understand the usage for emphasis. Personally I won't use it but I won't fault others for using it in the manner that powder had used.

 

[miloice]

sm, no. I don't define it. I'm voicing out with my reasons. Who defines it, frankly, its ourselves. If that would have been powderful, we would already know his usual tone.

Let's not pretend that profanities are suitable in every circumstances. When used appropriately, wouldn't most agree that it brings across the message really strongly? e.g. Namewee's songs and lyris.

The intent, context, individual traits defines it.

Another thing, to be an effective swearer, the humourous factor is damn important. That is something powderful did so well. I'm sure powder can do that too, but its not the side he usually displayed at least in this forum.

 

[simpleman]

If you don't define it then don't say it is appropriate or not. Just say your personal preference.

Come on.. this is internet forum.. a public place. We have seen much more crude language than these. Powder's f... words are only for emphasis.. not even swearing words.. And then we are here judging if it is appropriate or not.. If it is, complain to moderator to have it removed.

The intent of powder's usage is simple and direct. I would imagine most of us can see it.. it is for fxuking emphasis.

 

[powder]

well milo,

unfortunataly for me it's not so much of a "need to" basis... but just part of the daily language. i dun consider it as swearing.

fyi, Swearing is "profane or obscene expression usually of surprise or anger", and Profane is "showing a lack of respect for God or religious objects, places, or beliefs"

for me i dun link my use to the dictionary. the word is just one of Emphasizing... and in a everyday spore life, in spore context, we know it is harmless and often linked to expression.

u have expressions like "u're a dickhead", "as usual lah, he show me the fcukface again", "he's really a mudderfarker this time". In my own dictionary, the offensive terms of the language are often derogatory name-calling like "bitch" and "slut"... i dun like these terms on a personal basis.

we have our own yardsticks, and i can understand that... but using 'fcuk' for emphasizing is nothing new.

of cos when i dun use it, it's becos most times it's advising and sharing. it's not natural for me to use it when there's no urgency nor emphasis needed. i dun even consciously use or not use it... u have to look at the context of it.

actually milo, i use it more than Powderful... who of cos is no longer with us in the forum.

 

[miloice]

sm, i did mentioned its imho.

"then we are here judging if it is appropriate or not.. If it is, complain to moderator to have it removed."

The only intent is neither to judge nor complain to get moderator to act or anything. Its a personal feedback directed to powder.

 

[powder]

anyway i think ajumma effective turned the topic to my use of 'fcuk'... from her lack of logic in arguments.

i'm more than happy to be penalised and banned from the forum for the use of the word.

 

[miloice]

It would be dumb if that happened. We have lots of other individuals that misbehave with intentions to disrupt.

Personally, this morning, I just felt the argument will get no where. By offering another person's pov, it could bring ajumma back to the topic instead of the entire thing becoming a personal dispute with comments and reactions taken personally.

Its easier to hear it from someone not actively involved in the exchange. Just last week, Jenny was equally upset. No one would appreciate someone taking sides, but having others to give another perspective or simply just reliterating it again could have a different effect. Even when one can be making complete sense, the pride, emotions, prejudice in place already tint the perception, its very hard to continue without pulling back the person.

 

[simpleman]

milo,

Not picking the words. I can understand your good intention.. but you are replying to Ajumma (agreeing that it is not appropriate for the f... words to be used) rather than giving feedback to powder. But I understand, you are replying directly to her.. But don't you see she is just trying to "gain" support by side-tracking on the issues. If she wants to engage on the point of the "swearing words" - she should direct at powder rather than asking you.. just because you are becoming more sympathetic?

If you want to feedback to powder.. you can direct at him.

 

[simpleman]

I am just killing time.. waiting for next meeting.. so I am getting a little picky with words..

 

[miloice]

hi sm, it was directed to powder already as mentioned in reply to Ajumma as well.

Not understanding what you mean here. 1st Ajumma ask, then powder and u also asked. But, the feedback is still the same one mah.

Ok, if its the suggestion over F words = not respecting. no, I'm don't agree. My point is : there are better ways to put across the message. It was rather vulgar to me. I didn't dispute on the validity about the mesg.

 

[powder]

hehe, we're all pretty free... at this point of time of cos. free for minutes or seconds.